OT: Michael Vick signs with Philly

[rwsaunders]

Move over Cleveland, there's a new dog pound in town.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/08/14/vick.eagles/index.html

[peanutgallery]

Move over Cleveland, there's a new dog pound in town.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/08/14/vick.eagles/index.html

Crazy move, might be a long season if McNabb gets hurt.

[Ray]

People around here are mucho surprised, to say the least. I knew he'd get picked up somewhere, but would never have guessed the Iggles would've been the team to do it. Its gonna be a looong season if McNabb gets hurt regardless (and maybe if he doesn't) - I'm not sure that Vick makes it any shorter. But from his standpoint I can sort of see it. Philly is one of the toughest sports towns anywhere but its ALL about performance on the field, which is probably what he wants to be judged on more than anything now. If he gets the job done on the field, the fans will forgive him and then grow to really like him. And if he doesn't they'll be all over him, but probably because of THAT, not his past.

-Ray

[bzbvh5]

I thought the Raiders would want another for other than Jeff Garcia and JaMarcus Russell. And I think the fans would be some of the most forgiving fans so it would have been a good fit for Michal.

[rugbysecondrow]

Seems like a good place for him to end up. I am glad to see he found a place to play and will be given a chance to perform and compete.

[tsarpepe]

I am not the least bit surprised that the Eagles got him. There are just a few teams in the NFL that would go for a liability like this (Oakland, Cinci, Dallas). Who else but the Eagles took a chance on TO after Dallas?

[Tobias]

Sorry, but people don’t change because they get caught and punished. He’s still the same man.

Just shows how low we've sunk as a society.

[CNY rider]

Rumors had him coming to my beloved Buffalo Bills and I am very happy that did not happen.

[Ray]

Who else but the Eagles took a chance on TO after Dallas?
It was before Dallas, but that's EXACTLY why people were so surprised. I mean THAT really worked out well, right?

-Ray

[peanutgallery]

People around here are mucho surprised, to say the least. I knew he'd get picked up somewhere, but would never have guessed the Iggles would've been the team to do it. Its gonna be a looong season if McNabb gets hurt regardless (and maybe if he doesn't) - I'm not sure that Vick makes it any shorter. But from his standpoint I can sort of see it. Philly is one of the toughest sports towns anywhere but its ALL about performance on the field, which is probably what he wants to be judged on more than anything now. If he gets the job done on the field, the fans will forgive him and then grow to really like him. And if he doesn't they'll be all over him, but probably because of THAT, not his past.

-Ray

In the past few years the Iggles have always had a little something different in their back-up QB and it has always helped. Having a second guy running around and forcing plays is not what they need.

Agree with you on the way he will be treated if he keeps it straight. There are a lot of TV markets that would eat him alive no matter what happened.

Hopefully the Iggles win, helps make winter fun here in PA

[Tobias]

Rumors had him coming to my beloved Buffalo Bills and I am very happy that did not happen.
I actually didn’t think he would ever land a NFL gig. Shows how much I know.

Now we’ll have to see which desperate company uses him to endorse their lame products.

[tsarpepe]

Of course, before Dallas. And yes, it could work: Moss to New England is a case in point. But I think you need a good organization for such experiments to pay off. I'm not sure the Eagles should be attempting this kind of move right now: with all the tension around McNabb + the way they dealt with Dawkins. It seems that the situation in the clubhouse is quite volatile around now. Some people in there may be asking why you let go of two perennial and faithfufl Eagles, then go chasing after guy with a criminal record.

[Ray]

Of course, before Dallas. And yes, it could work: Moss to New England is a case in point. But I think you need a good organization for such experiments to pay off. I'm not sure the Eagles should be attempting this kind of move right now: with all the tension around McNabb + the way they dealt with Dawkins. It seems that the situation in the clubhouse is quite volatile around now. Some people in there may be asking why you let go of two perennial and faithfufl Eagles, then go chasing after guy with a criminal record.
Letting go of people when their past their primes (or not quite, but when you don't want to commit to them for a long time), without sentiment, has been their hallmark since Andy Reid came to town. Jeez, the list is incredibly long, Trotter, Douglas, Vincent, Taylor, Garcia, Staley, Lito and Runyan just this year, etc. I can't even begin to think of most of them. Dawk is just the latest example. He would always be a fan favorite and he'd lost more than a step. He might have one or two decent years left in him, but they're always happy to let other people outbid them for people like that. They've done pretty well with that strategy, getting to five NFC Championship games and a Super Bowl. But, of course, until they bring home the big prize, nobody will ever see them (or McNabb) as a success. I think McNabb has been the right QB for this team, but he'll never get much luv around here until he wins it all. And they've never been quite good enough.

-Ray

[nahtnoj]

I want my baseball season back.

Went on philly.com this morning to find about 10 articles about Vick and nothing on the Phillies game - took some digging.

[Ozz]

Sorry, but people don’t change because they get caught and punished. He’s still the same man.

Just shows how low we've sunk as a society.
+1

Anyone can be "reformed" when the reward for being so is a big payday. I would have rather seen him sit a couple seasons and behave, do some good deeds, etc before letting him into the league.

Disappointing to say the least.... :no:

[rugbysecondrow]

+1

Anyone can be "reformed" when the reward for being so is a big payday. I would have rather seen him sit a couple seasons and behave, do some good deeds, etc before letting him into the league.

Disappointing to say the least.... :no:

You mean like sit a couple seasons in prison or sit a couple more for good measure? Good deads are not required for playing in the NFL, never have been and never will.

[rugbysecondrow]

Sorry, but people don’t change because they get caught and punished. He’s still the same man.

Just shows how low we've sunk as a society.

It is not a given that people change because they get caught and punished, but that also doesn't mean he is still the same man. I would hope that most people grow and change as life kicks them in the arse a little bit. Since when is our society sunk because somebody gets a second chance?

I don't know any mistake free people, I know I have gotten tripped up a time or two.

[Ray]

Sorry, but people don’t change because they get caught and punished. He’s still the same man.

Just shows how low we've sunk as a society.
So, you're arguing that his prison sentence wasn't long enough? Fair enough, but he was convicted and sentenced and served the time he was sentenced to. So should people who are convicted of crimes who do their time also be sentenced to the rest of their life without gainful employment?

He may very well have not changed, may offend again in some other way (can't imagine it'd be the SAME way) and then he'd be tried and sentenced again. He'd have been given his second chance and failed. Then again, he might have learned something and may keep his act together this time, play football well, and stay out of trouble. In which case, we'll have to say that he did change and he's only partially the same man.

Are you against second chances in all cases? In which case, what, life sentences for anything more serious than a parking ticket? I'm not arguing that he's gonna be a raging success - I don't know and I surely won't be shocked if he ends up in trouble again. But what should we do once people have served their allotted time if we don't let them seek employment?

-Ray

[Tobias]

So, you're arguing that his prison sentence wasn't long enough? Fair enough, but he was convicted and sentenced and served the time he was sentenced to. So should people who are convicted of crimes who do their time also be sentenced to the rest of their life without gainful employment?

He may very well have not changed, may offend again in some other way (can't imagine it'd be the SAME way) and then he'd be tried and sentenced again. He'd have been given his second chance and failed. Then again, he might have learned something and may keep his act together this time, play football well, and stay out of trouble. In which case, we'll have to say that he did change and he's only partially the same man.

Are you against second chances in all cases? In which case, what, life sentences for anything more serious than a parking ticket? I'm not arguing that he's gonna be a raging success - I don't know and I surely won't be shocked if he ends up in trouble again. But what should we do once people have served their allotted time if we don't let them seek employment?

-RaySure, if you insist. :rolleyes:

Ray, I see an enormous difference between a person serving their sentence and getting a second chance to earn a living by working hard, and that same person being placed in a position of being idolized (including by kids) and paid a fortune to play a game. To me that seems more like a privilege he no longer deserves.

My personal view on this is not much different than if we were discussing many other “jobs”. For instance, how would you answer your own questions if we were talking about a police officer who had served his sentence for abuse of power? Would you still give him a “second chance” to earn a living as a cop?

How about if we were talking about a corrupt CEO, banker, lawyer, etc…? Don’t we have laws that prohibit some people from going back to their old jobs because their offenses were hideous or we don’t want to give them a second chance at the same level? Would you give pedophiles a second chance to teach kids?

Sadly I think the NFL has the right to hire Vick. OTOH I have the right not to like it and not watch his games. For them that’s not much of a loss since I don’t follow professional sports much anymore (for exactly these kinds of reasons).

[rugbysecondrow]

Sure, if you insist. :rolleyes:

Ray, I see an enormous difference between a person serving their sentence and getting a second chance to earn a living by working hard, and that same person being placed in a position of being idolized (including by kids) and paid a fortune to play a game. To me that seems more like a privilege he no longer deserves.

My personal view on this is not much different than if we were discussing many other “jobs”. For instance, how would you answer your own questions if we were talking about a police officer who had served his sentence for abuse of power? Would you still give him a “second chance” to earn a living as a cop?

How about if we were talking about a corrupt CEO, banker, lawyer, etc…? Don’t we have laws that prohibit some people from going back to their old jobs because their offenses were hideous or we don’t want to give them a second chance at the same level? Would you give pedophiles a second chance to teach kids?

Sadly I think the NFL has the right to hire Vick. OTOH I have the right not to like it and not watch his games. For them that’s not much of a loss since I don’t follow professional sports much anymore (for exactly these kinds of reasons).

I think your analogies are off. Those other examples dealt with crimes or corruption in the discharge of their duties. Pete Rose is a perfect example of what you describe. I don't agree at all with what Vick did, but it had nothing to do with football or his profession. That makes it different then all the other examples you noted.

Also, and this won't be popular to say, but crimes against dogs are quite a bit different then crimes against children, or people. I love my dogs, but I can clearly differentiate between a crime against them and a crime against my child. I understand the hateful reaction because people incorrectly view dogs as if they were people to, but they are not.

[trophyoftexas]

Sorry, but people don’t change because they get caught and punished. He’s still the same man.

Just shows how low we've sunk as a society.

....I was sorta hoping he'd come down here to Texas....we've got a lotta stray dogs chasin' bike riders all the time and I figured he'd sure help solve THAT problem! ;)

[Sandy]

Dog fighter-

As many know on the forum, I have a great affection for dogs and have a rescued American Pit Bull Terrier. In addition, I have an affinity for the pit bull breeds as they are often owned by absurdly irresponsible and non-caring individuals who often grossly mistreat them. Many pits are wonderful loving loyal family pets. Some clearly are not. The worst owners are probably those who treat the dogs as a commodity to be used to fight for financial gain and sport, and worse yet to be tortured and destroyed because they did not win a fight. One level below that is the individual who is caught actively supporting and operating a large pit bull fighting operation who not only lies to the public about such but to his employer too. That description fits Michael Vick quite well.

Michael Vick actions were genuinely insensitive, callous, and deplorable. He was convicted for his crimes against the dogs and then served his time in jail. Although I find his actions to be reprehensible, he should have the right to obtain legitimate employment, whatever that may be. Michael Vick was punished and lost a great deal of money from lost salary and endorsements.

The commissioner of the NFL took a position for the image of the league and not fair to Michael Vick. He should have been allowed to compete, if rehired, with no restrictions imposed.

Football player- The NFL is a large business and talented athletes are the core of what makes the business successful. Michael Vick is a somewhat rare athlete. I actually never thought that Michael Vick was such a good quarterback. I saw and see him used more effectively in numerous roles- running back with the option of passing, receiver, and punt or kick off returner. He is a gifted runner and I think he will be used in multiple ways.


Sandy

[zray67]

Sorry, but people don’t change because they get caught and punished. He’s still the same man.

Just shows how low we've sunk as a society.

+1

[Sandy]

I think your analogies are off. Those other examples dealt with crimes or corruption in the discharge of their duties. Pete Rose is a perfect example of what you describe. I don't agree at all with what Vick did, but it had nothing to do with football or his profession. That makes it different then all the other examples you noted.

Also, and this won't be popular to say, but crimes against dogs are quite a bit different then crimes against children, or people. I love my dogs, but I can clearly differentiate between a crime against them and a crime against my child. I understand the hateful reaction because people incorrectly view dogs as if they were people to, but they are not.

I am sure that I will receive criticism for what I will say here, and will probably have some who might misconstrue and/or change the actual meaning of what I say, as that has happened in the past.

I am not equating people to dogs, but am saying the following- Characterize it as you please, and differentiate children from animals/dogs as you like, but people who treat dogs with total disdain, with no sensitivity or empathy for the dog, to the extent of actually fighting, torturing, and killing the dogs, are individuals who are genuinely missing an important core human sensitivity. Cruelty to dogs is the same as cruelty to humans. It is simply application of the ability to be cruel to living feeling animals, and often that ability to be cruel is not isolated to just one species.


Sandy

[Jeff N.]

Thank goodness my Chargers traded away their first pick years ago to Atlanta and got LT instead of Vick. Vick will be persona non grata wherever he goes. Looking at my schedule for this upcoming season, I see the Bolts will be playing the Eagles in week 10. If Vick is playing by then, I'm sure Merriman will have some fun with him. It's not about being a dog lover, because I'm not. There's a barking great dane next door I'd like to strangle! No, it's about human decency (And Pete Rose is permanently kicked out of baseball because of a little wagering? Go figure.). Jeff N.

[Louis]

I'm as big an animal lover as anyone, and a hater of the abusers, but if MV has a serious "Don't make the same mistakes I did" program going, and can be a good influence on the kids back in the 'hood dog-wise, then I'll be happy he's back in the game.

[Climb01742]

sandy may be the only person here who loves dogs more than i do. and the MV i saw before prison was a total a-hole. and i have mixed feelings at best about his return to the NFL and how athletes and other famous people are more easily given second (and third...) chances than most anyone else. so i brought all that to yesterday's MV news conference. i was honestly surprised and frankly impressed. MV "seemed" genuinely cognizant of his mistakes. he seemed much more remorseful than dante stallworth. granted, press conferences are just words but MV, to me, didn't have the vibe of an act. it felt real. but as he and others have said, time and his actions are the real test. but two years in a federal pen like levenworth (SP?) must be a sobering experience. rightly or wrongly, i also give weight to having tony dungy vouch for him. TD seems like one of the truly "good guys" in the nfl. if TD believes him, i'm ready to give MV a second chance. i just hope he keeps his word about trying to now help more animals than he's ever hurt...which is a lot.

[RPS]

I understand the hateful reaction because people incorrectly view dogs as if they were people to, but they are not.
Do you also understand that if society equated dogs with children or humans in general that Vick would have been found guilty of mass murder, and as such would probably still be in jail? And clearly that isn’t the case. No one is treating dogs like people.

You need to rethink the real reason so many people were disgusted with his actions. Personally, I view the killing of animals as a part of life, a necessary evil. The difference I see here is that when an animal enjoys the act of killing, cause suffering, and maiming to the point of it becoming entertainment they display a certain level of savagery that is hard for those with empathy to comprehend. That part I get is hard to understand.

Fortunately for him the public has a very short memory.

[RPS]

I’m interested to see whether some national advertisers won’t support Philadelphia games or cut back significantly.

I’m with Tobias in thinking the NFL has the right to let Vick play and we have the right to change the channel if we wish. Beyond that I also think advertisers have the right to not support the team, animal rights groups have the right to demonstrate and plan boycotts, etc….

There are a lot of variables. It may blow over quickly or it could escalate – I have no idea which is more likely.

[rugbysecondrow]

Do you also understand that if society equated dogs with children or humans in general that Vick would have been found guilty of mass murder, and as such would probably still be in jail? And clearly that isn’t the case. No one is treating dogs like people.

You need to rethink the real reason so many people were disgusted with his actions. Personally, I view the killing of animals as a part of life, a necessary evil. The difference I see here is that when an animal enjoys the act of killing, cause suffering, and maiming to the point of it becoming entertainment they display a certain level of savagery that is hard for those with empathy to comprehend. That part I get is hard to understand.

Fortunately for him the public has a very short memory.

I disagree, people are reacting more than if it were people he harmed. Another NFL player (Dante Stallworth) killed a pedestrian while driving under the influence drugs and alcohol and that has gotten almost no attention. Leonard Little with the St. Rams, killed a person while driving drunk and is a repeat DUI offender. Where is the outrage, the protest, the cries for banning them from ever playing again? I think it is plainly clear that many people have reacted more severly over the dog fighting ring that Vick ran than people who have actually killed another human being. And no, I don't think that using one form of bad behavior excuses another, but I am speaking to the reaction that it got. Pretty disproportionate if you ask me.

I am not excusing his behavior, but he has been punished very severly, served the punishment, and now has the chance to redeem himself. I hope people react appropriatly to his actions and let him work his way back into society.

[Ozz]

I'm as big an animal lover as anyone, and a hater of the abusers, but if MV has a serious "Don't make the same mistakes I did" program going, and can be a good influence on the kids back in the 'hood dog-wise, then I'll be happy he's back in the game.
That's my point.....I don't care that he is not in prison anymore, I just think the league was pretty accommodating in welcoming him back.

He says he is a changed man.....I just say let him prove it outside the NFL for awhile to make sure he is genuine.

Like the saying goes: "Character is what you are when no one is looking." Well, it is what you are when no one is paying you as well.

I hope he has changed, and if he has I wish him well. But I still wouldn't have a beer with him yet.

[Len J]

The guy spent 2 years in Leavenworth & lost 2 years of his prime in his career. he also lost $70 million in salary and endorsements. That's a pretty severe penalty in anyone's books.

I, and it appears Goddell, intend to "Judge" him on his actions. He will either demonstrate reform or he won't.........with the scrutiny he is under, either will be obvious. It's how I would like to be treated.

That being said, I never thought he was a very good QB. He's a runner that tries to throw occasionally. If Reid uses him as a unique asset, then I think it could be a good move. Use him as a starting QB (If McNabb gets hurt) is, I think a hugh mistake.

It appears that, for some people, there are unforgivable sins..............actively fighting & killing dogs being one of them.....and others, not so much..........drunken manslaughter with a car for instance. If I were raised in a culture that honored dogfighting, and I was 21 YO with money, I can't say that I wouldn't be involved in it.........I'd like to think I wouldn't, but I'm not that sure. I'm not defending it, just maybe explaining it. We all, myself included, judge other cultures through our own experiences and beliefs. The inner city of Philly had a dogfighting culture when I grew up............I understand that it's worse now. He will have more than enough opportunity to prove he has changed.....or not.

I believe in the ability of humans to change fundamentally. I believe that a person deserves the benefit of the doubt until they prove they are unworthy of it. I think The league and the commissioner has done a good job of setting boundaries on him.

Len

[Rusty Luggs]

RPS has the comparison right. I keep seeing folks equate various incidents where a person is killed as a result of a DUI with Vick's offense, and citing the disparity in the punishment. Here's the difference – one is a result of stupidity and negligence, the other is deliberate premeditated cruelty. The law and society recognize the distinction.

[Sandy]

+1

Sandy

[rugbysecondrow]

RPS has the comparison right. I keep seeing folks equate various incidents where a person is killed as a result of a DUI with Vick's offense, and citing the disparity in the punishment. Here's the difference – one is a result of stupidity and negligence, the other is deliberate premeditated cruelty. The law and society recognize the distinction.

Sorry, but that is a convenient explanation. Someone who purposefully goes into a bar, purposefully drinks, purposely drives, purposely does so while doing drugs is way more than stupid or negligent. DUIs are easier to understand since many people have had to much to drink and then driven, but lets not excuse it as something less than purposful. I know where the two crimes rank for me and maybe I am in the minority in thinking dogs are a tad lower on the pole than humans. Maybe that is just my crazy way of thinking though. :rolleyes:

[Louis]

There certainly is some sort of visceral reaction to the dog fighting thing, but IMO much of the hullabaloo is due to the novelty: How many sports stars have been implicated in a dog-fighting ring, vs. how many have had DUI issues?

One is new and different, the other is old hat. We all know what sells in the world of media.

[Len J]

RPS has the comparison right. I keep seeing folks equate various incidents where a person is killed as a result of a DUI with Vick's offense, and citing the disparity in the punishment. Here's the difference – one is a result of stupidity and negligence, the other is deliberate premeditated cruelty. The law and society recognize the distinction.

And one kills a human being and one doesn't.

Isn't drinking and driving a willful act?

Len

[Tobias]

And one kills a human being and one doesn't.

Isn't drinking and driving a willful act?

LenWe all differentiate between things differently. That’s for sure considering all the arguments in this forum over minor things.

You don’t differentiate between consequential damages, intent to commit damage, and the kind of mental sickness that comes with liking to see animals or humans suffer for no purpose but for personal entertainment the same as a few others. So what? You are entitled to think any way you want....as are we. I hope most people in society are more like us, but maybe they are not.

No sane person is saying that a dog is more valuable than a human life. Period – get over this point. What we see differently is that a drunk doesn’t intend to kill anyone (maybe doesn’t care that they may kill someone but that’s not the same as going out of their way to actually kill). Furthermore, not only do they not kill intentionally, they get no pleasure from the act of killing – the subsequent car accident that follows getting drunk is a consequence of being drunk. Killing or hurting anyone was never the goal. Enjoying someone’s suffering while they died due to the car accident was even less of their goal.

Should they have known not to drink and drive? Of course. I’d personally throw the book at them and put them in jail for a very long time. However, even under those extremes, in my mind that driver may have a drug problem but doesn’t lack the humanity Vick demonstrated.

We are talking about two different things here. I respect that you don’t view it the same as a few of us, but no amount of debating will ever change that. You are looking at what caused the greatest damage; we are looking at whose brain is screwed up the most.

[Sandy]

We all differentiate between things differently. That’s for sure considering all the arguments in this forum over minor things.

You don’t differentiate between consequential damages, intent to commit damage, and the kind of mental sickness that comes with liking to see animals or humans suffer for no purpose but for personal entertainment the same as a few others. So what? You are entitled to think any way you want....as are we. I hope most people in society are more like us, but maybe they are not.

No sane person is saying that a dog is more valuable than a human life. Period – get over this point. What we see differently is that a drunk doesn’t intend to kill anyone (maybe doesn’t care that they may kill someone but that’s not the same as going out of their way to actually kill). Furthermore, not only do they not kill intentionally, they get no pleasure from the act of killing – the subsequent car accident that follows getting drunk is a consequence of being drunk. Killing or hurting anyone was never the goal. Enjoying someone’s suffering while they died due to the car accident was even less of their goal.

Should they have known not to drink and drive? Of course. I’d personally throw the book at them and put them in jail for a very long time. However, even under those extremes, in my mind that driver may have a drug problem but doesn’t lack the humanity Vick demonstrated.

We are talking about two different things here. I respect that you don’t view it the same as a few of us, but no amount of debating will ever change that. You are looking at what caused the greatest damage; we are looking at whose brain is screwed up the most.


Please do not misconstrue my comments or read them more into them than they say, as that has been the case in previous dog threads. The enduring sadness and intensity of emotions that often occurs for those whose pet has died is often the equal of a human loss. In either case it depends on the significance of the relationship/bond/importance that exists between the two. The value that one places on an animal's life, be it human or non-human, is a function of a myriad of factors, not easily defined and assessed.Sanity as mentioned above really does not apply.


Sandy

[rugbysecondrow]

We all differentiate between things differently. That’s for sure considering all the arguments in this forum over minor things.

You don’t differentiate between consequential damages, intent to commit damage, and the kind of mental sickness that comes with liking to see animals or humans suffer for no purpose but for personal entertainment the same as a few others. So what? You are entitled to think any way you want....as are we. I hope most people in society are more like us, but maybe they are not.

No sane person is saying that a dog is more valuable than a human life. Period – get over this point. What we see differently is that a drunk doesn’t intend to kill anyone (maybe doesn’t care that they may kill someone but that’s not the same as going out of their way to actually kill). Furthermore, not only do they not kill intentionally, they get no pleasure from the act of killing – the subsequent car accident that follows getting drunk is a consequence of being drunk. Killing or hurting anyone was never the goal. Enjoying someone’s suffering while they died due to the car accident was even less of their goal.

Should they have known not to drink and drive? Of course. I’d personally throw the book at them and put them in jail for a very long time. However, even under those extremes, in my mind that driver may have a drug problem but doesn’t lack the humanity Vick demonstrated.

We are talking about two different things here. I respect that you don’t view it the same as a few of us, but no amount of debating will ever change that. You are looking at what caused the greatest damage; we are looking at whose brain is screwed up the most.

I didn't know we were talking about who had a screwed up brain. My point is that the man more than paid his due and should now be able to play football. My second point was that the reaction to this is out of whack relative to other crimes that have been commited by other players during the same time span. This is a popular and easy thing to be upset about...who doesn't like fido?

As an aside, a dog I adopted last year (German Shepherd mix) was a foster dog with some of Vicks dogs here in Maryland, so I don't lack compassion for the situation. I just try to be measured in my approach.

[Louis]

No sane person is saying that a dog is more valuable than a human life. Period – get over this point.

I'm not so sure about that.

For example, consider how much individuals spend on pets (whether it be for fancy food, toys, medical care, whatever) vs. how much they spend, say, to help folks in Darfur, or wherever. I think our actions (I put myself in that bunch) and the statistics speak for themselves.

[Tobias]

I'm not so sure about that.

For example, consider how much individuals spend on pets (whether it be for fancy food, toys, medical care, whatever) vs. how much they spend, say, to help folks in Darfur, or wherever. I think our actions (I put myself in that bunch) and the statistics speak for themselves.
Using that reasoning, does it mean many of us value bicycles more than human life? :confused:

If I buy a DA rear derailleur instead of an Ultegra knowing the difference in cost can feed a few hungry kids in Africa for a week, does it mean I value a shinny piece of metal more than a child? Where do you draw the line? Custom versus stock frames, Serotta versus Huffy, home-brewed Maxwell House versus Starbucks, BMW versus Honda, etc.?

Louis, I think you are right in an absolute basis, but if I had to think that way prior to spending every dollar it would drive me insane – there would be no end in sight.


BTW, the “60 Minutes” interview last night did nothing to change my position. I was not impressed with expressed remorse or claims of real change.

[Louis]

Using that reasoning, does it mean many of us value bicycles more than human life? :confused:

Absolutely. What's the story about the rich guy who donates a whole bunch of money and little girl who gives the last thing she has?

[rugbysecondrow]

Using that reasoning, does it mean many of us value bicycles more than human life? :confused:

If I buy a DA rear derailleur instead of an Ultegra knowing the difference in cost can feed a few hungry kids in Africa for a week, does it mean I value a shinny piece of metal more than a child? Where do you draw the line? Custom versus stock frames, Serotta versus Huffy, home-brewed Maxwell House versus Starbucks, BMW versus Honda, etc.?

Louis, I think you are right in an absolute basis, but if I had to think that way prior to spending every dollar it would drive me insane – there would be no end in sight.


BTW, the “60 Minutes” interview last night did nothing to change my position. I was not impressed with expressed remorse or claims of real change.

I thought it was a good interview, but I also understand that for a certain segment of the population, there is nothing he could have said or done to adequatly prove remorse. Frankly, he doesn't have to because that is a silly standard. Do we ask for true remorse from all who have been punished? How would you even gauge that he is remorsful if that is your standard? All society asks of him is to obey the law and the standards for behevior that have been set for him (nfl, probation etc). Remorse and views of expressed change are standards that others have unreasonably heaped on him that are impossible to meet.

[csm]

it's football. lighten up.